Monday’s meeting of the mayor’s executive,
the day the committee was supposed to rubber-stamp his austerity
program, started out with the Fordists talking tough in the face of
growing public and political opposition.
But by lunchtime, when Ford’s coterie of council supporters were herded into the big guy’s office for a photo opportunity meant to give the appearance of a united front and offer more brave words about staying the course, it was clear that it wouldn’t be business as usual at 100 Queen West.
After another all-nighter to hear from the city’s citizens on a raft of proposed cuts, the mayor’s henchmen blinked on Tuesday, taking some off the table and punting a whole bunch of others to staff for further consideration during upcoming budget deliberations. (See Sideshow At City Hall for details).
The decision to defer will buy Ford a little more time to do some arm-twisting and horse-trading on the cuts front. The Ford camp is banking, too, on having a PC premier in the Pink Palace come October 6, which would give the mayor more political leverage to muscle his cuts through. He could use his campaign promise to reduce council by half, to 22 councillors, as a stick if Hudak wins.
A word of caution, though, for those tempted to see deferring cuts for the time being as a rebuke to the mayor’s agenda. The broad strokes are still very much in play. Some exec committee members, Michelle Berardinetti in particular, argue that it was always their intention to find a compromise.
She says we shouldn’t read too much into their distancing themselves from the mayor on some cuts now. “We’re all independent councillors,” says Berardinetti. “We listened to residents. We arrived at a consensus. It’s a great day for Toronto.”
She blames “hyperbole” in some media for creating the impression that somehow the executive is at odds with the mayor. Well, bite my head off.
Berardinetti says council can still come up with funds to fill the $774 million deficit (a number manufactured or real depending on who you talk to) through increased user fees (yikes), other efficiencies and “monetizing” city assets like Toronto Hydro.
But the not-so-subtle signs are that even right-wing hardliners on the mayor’s exec are getting cold feet on this cuts business. The usually uncompromising David Shiner, for example, recommend merely receiving a number of proposed cuts for the committee’s information.
And Paul Ainslie spoke out against a move to removing fluoride from the city’s drinking water.
City Hall history shows that political momentum can turn very quickly against whoever’s in the mayor’s chair, and that once a few councillors start heading for the door, more usually follow. The backtrack by the mayor on his brother Doug’s port lands dreaming is evidence of that.
For many on city council, just a couple of dozen calls from angry residents can shift the tide. They’re one well-organized ratepayer’s group away from political defeat in the next election. And make no mistake, the cuts proposed would be felt city-wide.
It didn’t have to be this way, of course. Though it’s customary for new governments to, as the mayor’s press secretary told me, “get the hard stuff out of the way first,” the mayor painted himself into a corner right from the get-go. He deliberately spent the surplus and created a budget crisis to justify hiring consultants to sell council and citizens on the need for widespread cuts.
That exercise seems to have backfired. If anything, it’s clarified for people just how much bang for the tax buck the city delivers.
The mayor could have chosen another course. He didn’t have to give cops a $30 million pay raise to sink us further into the hole. He could have considered other revenue tools to cover the budget shortfall, like taxing billboards or increasing parking fees, as one speaker suggested. Instead, he wants to reduce enforcement of illegal signs and sell off city-owned garages. Dumb.
Some residents at Monday’s meeting told the mayor they’d gladly pay a little more in property taxes if it meant keeping affordable housing and dental services for the poor and drop-ins for the disabled and those struggling with mental health issues. The words “people are going to die” were heard more than once from deputants.
The mayor also didn’t have to pick a fight on daycare and threaten to pull city funding from 2,000 subsidized spaces. There’s still money in the childcare reserve fund to cover costs until the second quarter of 2013, according to Councillor Janet Davis.
The options were there. The mayor could have used his supposed influence with the PM, his fishing buddy, and the province to do right by the city – you know, make good on that promise to earn the trust of those who didn’t vote for him.
Instead, Ford has recklessly pursued his own ideological agenda.
But rumours of his imminent demise may be exaggerated. Noticeably missing from Monday’s executive meeting, as observers, were members of council’s mushy middle, the same folk who’ve been supporting the mayor.
I’m hearing that many of them will be willing to vote with the mayor on his omni-cuts package in exchange for saving pet projects in their own wards. A rebuke of the mayor “is just not there,” says Josh Colle. Sobering words from someone widely viewed as a linchpin of the mushy middle.
The jig may not be up for Ford, but the city’s unions and his opponents on council managed to score a few PR points this week. We’ll find out more September 26, when council convenes to vote on the exec’s recommendations.
The political machinations around the cuts suggest an evolving dynamic, says Shelley Carroll. Building a consensus the mayor can sell to council, she suggests, may mean having committees with more balanced membership from council’s left, right and centre.
The mayor hasn’t shown a grasp of the intricacies of compromise in his first year as mayor, or before that as a councillor. But as the political winds at City Hall change, he may have no choice – if, that is, he doesn’t want to be consumed by his own scorched-earth policies.
Origin
Source: NOW
But by lunchtime, when Ford’s coterie of council supporters were herded into the big guy’s office for a photo opportunity meant to give the appearance of a united front and offer more brave words about staying the course, it was clear that it wouldn’t be business as usual at 100 Queen West.
After another all-nighter to hear from the city’s citizens on a raft of proposed cuts, the mayor’s henchmen blinked on Tuesday, taking some off the table and punting a whole bunch of others to staff for further consideration during upcoming budget deliberations. (See Sideshow At City Hall for details).
The decision to defer will buy Ford a little more time to do some arm-twisting and horse-trading on the cuts front. The Ford camp is banking, too, on having a PC premier in the Pink Palace come October 6, which would give the mayor more political leverage to muscle his cuts through. He could use his campaign promise to reduce council by half, to 22 councillors, as a stick if Hudak wins.
A word of caution, though, for those tempted to see deferring cuts for the time being as a rebuke to the mayor’s agenda. The broad strokes are still very much in play. Some exec committee members, Michelle Berardinetti in particular, argue that it was always their intention to find a compromise.
She says we shouldn’t read too much into their distancing themselves from the mayor on some cuts now. “We’re all independent councillors,” says Berardinetti. “We listened to residents. We arrived at a consensus. It’s a great day for Toronto.”
She blames “hyperbole” in some media for creating the impression that somehow the executive is at odds with the mayor. Well, bite my head off.
Berardinetti says council can still come up with funds to fill the $774 million deficit (a number manufactured or real depending on who you talk to) through increased user fees (yikes), other efficiencies and “monetizing” city assets like Toronto Hydro.
But the not-so-subtle signs are that even right-wing hardliners on the mayor’s exec are getting cold feet on this cuts business. The usually uncompromising David Shiner, for example, recommend merely receiving a number of proposed cuts for the committee’s information.
And Paul Ainslie spoke out against a move to removing fluoride from the city’s drinking water.
City Hall history shows that political momentum can turn very quickly against whoever’s in the mayor’s chair, and that once a few councillors start heading for the door, more usually follow. The backtrack by the mayor on his brother Doug’s port lands dreaming is evidence of that.
For many on city council, just a couple of dozen calls from angry residents can shift the tide. They’re one well-organized ratepayer’s group away from political defeat in the next election. And make no mistake, the cuts proposed would be felt city-wide.
It didn’t have to be this way, of course. Though it’s customary for new governments to, as the mayor’s press secretary told me, “get the hard stuff out of the way first,” the mayor painted himself into a corner right from the get-go. He deliberately spent the surplus and created a budget crisis to justify hiring consultants to sell council and citizens on the need for widespread cuts.
That exercise seems to have backfired. If anything, it’s clarified for people just how much bang for the tax buck the city delivers.
The mayor could have chosen another course. He didn’t have to give cops a $30 million pay raise to sink us further into the hole. He could have considered other revenue tools to cover the budget shortfall, like taxing billboards or increasing parking fees, as one speaker suggested. Instead, he wants to reduce enforcement of illegal signs and sell off city-owned garages. Dumb.
Some residents at Monday’s meeting told the mayor they’d gladly pay a little more in property taxes if it meant keeping affordable housing and dental services for the poor and drop-ins for the disabled and those struggling with mental health issues. The words “people are going to die” were heard more than once from deputants.
The mayor also didn’t have to pick a fight on daycare and threaten to pull city funding from 2,000 subsidized spaces. There’s still money in the childcare reserve fund to cover costs until the second quarter of 2013, according to Councillor Janet Davis.
The options were there. The mayor could have used his supposed influence with the PM, his fishing buddy, and the province to do right by the city – you know, make good on that promise to earn the trust of those who didn’t vote for him.
Instead, Ford has recklessly pursued his own ideological agenda.
But rumours of his imminent demise may be exaggerated. Noticeably missing from Monday’s executive meeting, as observers, were members of council’s mushy middle, the same folk who’ve been supporting the mayor.
I’m hearing that many of them will be willing to vote with the mayor on his omni-cuts package in exchange for saving pet projects in their own wards. A rebuke of the mayor “is just not there,” says Josh Colle. Sobering words from someone widely viewed as a linchpin of the mushy middle.
The jig may not be up for Ford, but the city’s unions and his opponents on council managed to score a few PR points this week. We’ll find out more September 26, when council convenes to vote on the exec’s recommendations.
The political machinations around the cuts suggest an evolving dynamic, says Shelley Carroll. Building a consensus the mayor can sell to council, she suggests, may mean having committees with more balanced membership from council’s left, right and centre.
The mayor hasn’t shown a grasp of the intricacies of compromise in his first year as mayor, or before that as a councillor. But as the political winds at City Hall change, he may have no choice – if, that is, he doesn’t want to be consumed by his own scorched-earth policies.
Origin
Source: NOW
No comments:
Post a Comment